I sometimes struggle with maintaining my faith and will waiver/falter in belief, I wonder how others maintain their ideology regarding Christianity?

Romans 1:20 says, "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Werner Heisenberg

Regarding other religions, this video makes a great point: What Makes Christianity Different from other Religions? Essentially explaining how Christianity is different in the message of grace it presents compared to the requirements expected from other religions.

Any other personal anecdotes or specific reasons/examples that encourage you in your faith?

Hey guys.

I just finished reading New Testament and will plan on reading Old Testament.

I wanted to ask people what they view as strong evidence for Christianity. Whether that be certain prophecies, Jesus, archaeology.

I'd love to figure out what are some strong inside and outside evidences. Thank you.

Edit: Thank you all for responding me and debunking the points I raised :)

(1) Jesus' death by crucifixion. The medical and historical evidence clearly show that Jesus died by crucifixion. Jesus was scourged prior to his crucifixion, which was often fatal by itself. The stab wound he received from the Roman soldier almost certainly would have been fatal, and even if he did survive the immediate trauma, infection would quickly set in. The gospel of John records that a mix of "blood and water" flowed from Jesus' side after being stabbed, which almost certainly meant that Jesus has a pleural effusion, a condition in which the lungs fill with fluid after cardiac failure.

(2) The discovery of the empty tomb by the women disciples. The claim of the empty tomb easily meets standards of historical evidence that we would use for any other historical claim, i.e., the empty tomb claim easily meets the criterion of embarrassment, the criterion of early attestation, multiple attestation, and so on.

(3) The post-mortem appearances of Jesus. There are early and independent claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified. The creed of of 1 Cor. 15 3-5 is considered to be so early that almost all historical scholars believe that it was being circulated only a few months to a few years after Jesus' crucifixion. This creed was recited by Paul, who knew the eyewitnesses Peter, James (the brother of Jesus) and John on a personal basis.

(4) The radical transformation of the disciples. The disciples initially did not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and dismissed the report by the women disciples as "idle tales". Saul of Tarsus was a persecutor of the church, and Jesus' family did not believe in him (which presumably included James, Jesus' half-brother). Yet, the disciples soon begin proclaiming he was raised from the dead, Paul becomes the greatest evangelist in history, and James becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church and dies a martyr's death according to Josephus, Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus. Why the change? Paul gives the answer in 1 Cor 15 3-8: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(5) The persistent spread of Christianity. The disciples would spend decades and travel hundreds of miles on foot to proclaim that Jesus was the messiah who was resurrected from the dead. Many of the disciples almost certainly endured hardship and persecution for these claims, especially during the persecution under Nero in the 60s CE. Could the Christian movement have been a conspiracy? Not reasonably, since you had too many people, who had to keep the conspiracy going for too long of a time, with too much too lose for something that the disciples knew was a lie. All historical evidence that we have, e.g., Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, Aristides of Athens in the Apology of Aristides, etc. all give the same basic picture: The disciples traveled throughout the known world, proclaiming Jesus was resurrected, despite suffering and persecution.

(6) Corroboration of the New Testament by pagan historians and archeology. Corroboration from pagan historians comes from: Tacitus (who makes mention of the crucifixion of Jesus during the reign of Tiberias Caesar at the hands of Pilate, as well as the "breaking out" of the Christian movement in Judea and its spread to Rome), the original, non-corrupted form of Josephus (who makes references to the Sadducees, Pharisees, John the Baptist, the reign and family history of King Herod, the crucifixion of Jesus, etc. ), Mara-bar Serapion (who refers to Jesus as the "Wise King of the Jews" who was killed), etc. Archeological corroboration comes in the form of coins and plaques bearing the name of Pilate, the Gallio inscription, the Iconium inscription, the discovery of the pools of Siloam and Bethsaida in the 19th century as mentioned in the gospel of John, the Lysanias inscription, the discovery of the burial of crucifixion victims with the discovery of Yehohanan son of Hagakol, the existence of Sergius Paulus as mentioned in Acts 13:6-12, and many other

(7) The New Testament chain of provenance. The eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, such as Peter, and John, had students named Mark, Polycarp, Papias, Clement, and Ignatius. These students in turn had students, named Linus, Irenaeus, and others. These people in turn had students, and so on, all the way down to canonization in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. We can ask: Are the claims about Jesus changing over time? Are the early claims less supernatural than the later claims? We find that from the writings of the students of the eyewitnesses, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and was the son of God. To put it another way: even if we lost the New Testament, we could form a familiar picture of Jesus simply from the writings of the students of Peter and John.

(8) The early dating of the Gospels/Acts/Pauline epistles. The Gospels can be roughly dated as: Mark (50 - 70 CE), Luke/Matthew (55 - 85 CE), John (68 - 95 CE), depending upon whether you accept an early or late dating. Here, "early" means prior to the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. Acts was probably written anywhere from 62 - 85 CE, again depending upon whether you accept an early or late dating. The undisputed Pauline epistles were written from ~50 CE (1st Thessalonians, Galatians) to 56 - 58 CE (1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, Philippians). How does this compare to other historical sources? The best sources for the life of Alexander the Great are Arrian and Plutarch, who wrote 400+ years after Alexander died. Yet nobody would deny that we know much about Alexander from these historians. Many eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus were likely still alive when the New Testament was being written.

(9) New Testament textual evidence. We have far more New Testament manuscripts and fragments than any other ancient work, at 24,000+. The agreement between manuscripts is 96-99.5%, and the gap between the earliest fragments and first writing is ~150 years. How does this compare to other ancient works? Aristotle lived from 384 - 322 BCE, and we have ~50 copies of his works that date at 1000 CE, a time-gap of 1300 years! There is simply no comparison between the New Testament and other ancient works on textual grounds.